4.6 Article

Tourists, local food and the intention-behaviour gap

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.02.006

关键词

Tourists; Local food; Attitudes; Intention-behaviour gap; Purchase barriers and drivers

资金

  1. Australian Queensland Government [0980021972]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food tourism is a growing phenomenon with a particular emphasis on experiencing authentic and traditional local foods, which provides a vehicle for local producers and service providers to develop regional identities, enhance environmental awareness, and conserve traditional ways of life. However, past research indicates that whilst many tourists are interested in local food and drink, a number do not consume any whilst visiting a destination. This study explores why this intention behaviour gap may occur. Five hypotheses are tested using data collected from a sample of 546 respondents recruited via an online panel of visitors to South East Queensland, Australia. Regression analysis explores differences in attitudes, behaviours, barriers and drivers, and concludes an intention-behaviour (purchase) gap is evident. Whilst future visitors had high intentions to purchase local food, past visitors purchased less than might be anticipated. This is possibly due to past visitors holding less favourable attitudes and beliefs than future visitors due to expectations not being met. Key perceived barriers associated with lack of marketing and distribution, inconvenience, price and quality issues, and lack of trust the product is actually local may compound the issue. Practical suggestions are offered to producers, service providers and management on how they may close the intention/behaviour gap through a variety of marketing, distribution and communication strategies. This study provides new insight into why what visitors say they will do may not translate into actual behaviour, an area that has not been explored previously in this context, through studying the drivers/barriers to purchase/consumption.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据